Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Well, a
question I have is what was the Hagel thing all about? It wasn’t really about
Israel because nothing is going to change with regard to our policy toward
Israel. Just not happening. And of course when the opposition is based on
reports of Hagel connecting with a fictitious “radical” group, you know it
isn’t about that.

So here is
what I think. It was all about hiding the weakness of the Republican Party at
present. I mean, like a child’s tantrum, which is always an illustration of the
child’s powerlessness, the Republican Party threw a tantrum and like a child
hoped no one would notice that it was powerless. It was, of course, powerless
to stop the approval of Hagel’s nomination, just as it is powerless to affect
in any meaningful way his actions as Secretary of Defense. The party is
powerless because it lost the last presidential election and those who lose
elections lose power.

But an even
more interesting question for me is: Why do the Democrats play along? That is,
why don’t the Democrats just call “a spade a spade” and ram through a
nomination like Hagel’s? Why do they, the Democrats, that is, play along and
let the appearance of a real conflict prevail?

Now, first,
the question itself is interesting, as I have not heard anyone raise it. This
might even be more interesting than possible answers. But, second, regarding
possible answers the one I like is that the Democrats play along because then,
when the powers that be in that party want to justify their compromises with
the Republicans, they can do so by pointing the what is alleged to be a deeply
divided Washington. “Hey, folks, we had to agree to those cuts in Social
Security, in Medicare, and in Medicaid even though we didn’t want to agree to
because, well, because Washington is so deeply divided between two parties of
relatively equal power.”

Of course,
they really did want to make those “adjustments,” which will help to preserve,
they think, the status quo. But at the same time, they cannot say that they
want those “adjustments” without threatening their own power. And so, the
Democrats play along with the Republicans and pretend that they cannotgovern without the Republicans. Just watch
and see what happens with the sequester and I wager that Obama will pretend he
was forced to compromise with the Republicans.

Monday, February 25, 2013

I have to love this from the Washington Post today and I have to love
Justice Sotomayor’s calling “a spade caller a spade caller.” Ah yes, the
virtues of “diversity.”

“Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused a Texas federal prosecutor
Monday of tapping into a “deep and sorry vein of racial prejudice” in his
questioning of a black man facing a drug charge.

“The justices did not accept Bongani Charles Calhoun’s request that the
court review his conviction, but Sotomayor appended a
scathing statement to make sure that the court’s denial was not be seen as
a signal of “tolerance of a federal prosecutor’s racially charged remark.”

“Sotomayor did not name Assistant U.S. Attorney Sam L. Ponder in her
statement, but she denounced his questioning of Calhoun, who maintained in
court that he did not know that the friends with whom he was traveling were
planning a drug deal.

“Ponder had asked Calhoun: “You’ve got African Americans, you’ve got
Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money. Does that tell you — a light bulb
doesn’t go off in your head and say, ‘This is a drug deal?’”

Well,
folks, here it is: A report of another one of those ‘blunders’ by our
president.

“With Congress unlikely to stop deep
automatic spending cuts that will strike hard at the military, the fiscal stalemate
is highlighting a significant shift in the Republican Party: lawmakers
most keenly dedicated to shrinking the size of government are now more dominant
than the bloc committed foremost to a robust national defense, particularly in
the House.

“That reality also underscores what
Republicans, and some Democrats, say was a major miscalculation on the part of President Obama. He agreed to set
up the automatic cuts 18 months ago because he believed the threat of sharp
reductions in military spending would be enough to force Republicans to agree
to a deficit reduction plan that included the tax increases he favored.”

Of
course, this “analysis” assumes that this “major miscalculation” does not serve
Obama’s interests in preserving the status quo while sticking it to most
Americans by taking away their retirement money and their health care money, to
say nothing of other “reductions” or “adjustments.” And, further, the article
makes no mention of the possibility that restoring the “defense” cuts will be
far easier – and far easier to disguise and hide – than restoring other cuts. I
mean, come on, with the president able to, “at a stroke,” create a “national
security crisis,” I will wager anyone that any cuts to the “defense” budget
will be temporary – and both the president and the Republicans know this.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Well, here
it is, folks, short and sweet and all you need to know about why the
Republicans and Democrats are not all that concerned about the upcoming
sequestration. The following paragraph just about says everything that needs to
be said:

“At heart, the present standoff is yet
another indication of the political resistance to a compromise curbing the
growth of Medicare, Medicaid and possibly Social Security, a step that both
Obama and Republicans say is essential to restoring the nation’s fiscal health.
It is the last major remaining challenge in divided government’s struggle, now
in its third year, to reduce deficits by $4 trillion or more over a decade.”

There
is the crux of it: “both Obama and Republicans [think it] essential” to “curb
the growth of Medicare, Medicaid, and possibly Social Security.” As George
Carlin put it in his last HBO show, “they are coming after our retirement
money. And they will get it.” So, they are creating “the present standoff” to
prepare the ground for taking our money – while perhaps raising taxes a little
bit as well.

It
should be kept in mind – although this “analysis” makes no mention of it – that
not everyone thinks these programs are at the core of our current budgetary
issues. But obviously, if both political parties think they are, then that must
be gospel. And this is labeled “analysis.”

“Unlike in earlier rounds of budget
brinkmanship, President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans both seem
content to fight out their latest showdown on the current terrain, let
across-the-board spending cuts take effect on March 1 and allow them to stay in
place for weeks if not much longer.”

There
it is, again. “Let across-the-board spending cuts take effect” and let them
last and in that way prepare the American people for the talk of necessity, of
how the “system” is broken and so this what we had to do. “Sorry, folks. But
you have been living high off the hog for too long and now you need
‘discipline.’”

And
everyone will nod, watch more reality shows, watch March madness, then
baseball, and the political class will, as Carlin predicted, take our
retirement money. What a country.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Below is a
link to the blog, Landdestroyer, a blog I like to read every so often for its
perspective on imperialism and other matters political. Many would say that
this guy is “way over the top,” and perhaps, at least from a conventional point
of view, they would be right. Nonetheless, and probably because I have been
reading some Machiavelli of late, perhaps “over the top” does not always mean
“off the mark.”

In the blog
linked below, the argument is that demanding action from a government, that is,
the national government, that is controlled by and represents quite well
corporate interests, is futile. To wit:

“We all desire cleaner air, healthier
food, safer water, and greener parks. Waiting for a corporate-financier
establishment to give it to us, when they themselves are the ones that have
denied us of these essentials is the height of both naivety and
futility.“

As this
quote illustrates, the blog deals with climate change and a “rally” that occurred
attended by some 40,000 people, all demanding that the national government take
action in order to do something, anything apparently, about climate change. But
I am not so interested in that peg as I am in the more general argument put
forward that

“In fact, when you think about it,
almost all of these real solutions involve real community and local action, not
placard-waving trips to Washington. These are not solutions that involve
policies, taxes, and regulations, but rather technology, education, constructive,
pragmatic, technical solutions that not only would make our environment more
livable, but make our local economies and communities more viable and
self-sufficient. The catch is, and the reason why this isn't being done, you
will notice that none of these activities require WWF sponsors like Walmart,
Nike, IBM, Toyota, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, HSBC, Citi, IKEA, Nokia, etc.”

That is, I am more interested in the
argument that action, real or meaningful action by real people, should and must
happen at the local level.

One
question is: What happens to “action” taken at the national level? For example,
what happens to “gun legislation reform” at the national level as opposed to
the local level? And I am not arguing that national legislation is always less
useful than local legislation. Rather, I am just raising a question about
politics, about national politics versus local politics. We have been educated to
think, “Hey, big problem? Well, we need to turn to BIG GOVERNMENT.” But our
central government is not just “big,” it is also “national” and “bureaucratic.”
What does this mean in terms of “action?”

And
this question leads to others, such as: Is a national government or a national
mindset always preferable to local governments or a “local mindset?” What is or
would be a “local mindset?” What might these words reveal or obscure, just as
the words “national government” reveal and obscure at the same time.

And,
lastly, at least here, I like this blog because it leads to an argument that
our “problems” are more political than anything else. That is, we have the
“problems” we have and which continue to plague us because of how we have
arranged “things,” because of how we think politically and how we have
institutionalized our world. If BIG GOVERNMENT and BIG CORPORATIONS go hand in
hand, and if these BIG CORPORATIONS are not interested in genuine solutions to “our
problems,” thenin order to “solve”
these “problems” we need a different arrangement. Or as another of my favored
commentators has put it, we have reached the limits of what we call
“civilization.” [Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael
and other writings.]

Friday, February 15, 2013

“The greatest nation on Earth cannot
keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next.” Barack Obama,
State of the Union, 2013

Something
bothered me about this assertion from Obama, our current president, and I was finally
able to realize what it was: This assertion could not be more wrong, both as a
historical fact and as a political fact. That is, not only can a nation, even an allegedly great
nation, move from one manufactured crisis to the next, but the United States,
the allegedly great nation in
question, has done so. In fact, it is plausible to argue that this is a rather
apt and accurate description of our politics.

When
Richard Nixon declared the “necessity” for a “war on drugs”, there was no “drug
crisis” except of course as he chose to manufacture it. In that year when Nixon
made this declaration of war, more people died falling down stairs in the U.S.
than died of drug abuse, including both legal and illegal drugs. Even today,
the typical drug “abuser” in the U.S. is a person who occasionally uses
marijuana. This is what the typical
drug user looks like. Don’t believe me? Just look at our prison population and
its characteristics.

There
is no obesity crisis in the U.S. today both because most Americans who are
labeled “obese” by government approved standards are perfectly healthy but also
because the term “obesity” has little, if any, value for assessing a person’s
health. For example, almost every professional football player is “obese,” by
official “standards.” [Seethe book, The Obesity Myth, especially the first
chapter for an analysis of the foolishness that passes for “science” regarding
human weight.]

My
wife and I are watching a new show, “The Americans,” which is about two
Russians who have been planted in the U.S. during the cold war, the Reagan
Administration particularly, and acting as typical Americans [two kids and a
house in the suburbs] to spy on the U.S. I have trouble taking it seriously
because it is fair to say that much, if not all, of the “Cold War” was a
manufactured crisis. I mean just re-read John Kennedy’s Inaugural Address and
you will see or hear what I mean. Before he gave that speech, there was no
crisis that required we “pay any price, bear any burden” in confronting the
world. According to Eisenhower, the nation was most in need of “a rest,” of
some “normality,” perhaps even some contentment. But both Nixon and Kennedy ran against this view of the world and the place of the U.S. in it. It
was necessary, both said, for the U.S. “to get moving again.”

And
move we did. But there never was a
“crisis” in Vietnam or Southeast Asia for that matter, as we can see today as
we buy sneakers manufactured by those dreaded communists in Vietnam. Nor was
“the loss” of China to communists a crisis, as we can see so clearly today as
we deal with those “Reds” on a massive scale. And, needless to say, there never
was a crisis in Cuba as a result of the Castro revolution, except that we
wanted to manufacture one there, one which it is still “necessary” to maintain.
And as almost all know today, there never was a crisis of WMDs in Iraq that
required an invasion of that country. Even the invasion of Afghanistan by the
Soviets was a faux crisis, which we dealt with by arming those who would,
eventually, attack us. And to cap this off, I would say there is no “terrorism
crisis,” which is not to say that there are not “terrorists” we have to or
should “deal with.” But a crisis? I think not.

The
question then becomes: Why? What purpose or purposes are served by
manufacturing crisis after crisis? Well, it is my opinion that the interests of
the establishment in each political party are well served by such manufactured
crises. Because we must confront one crisis after another, there is no time to
consider real or significant changes in our political world. And this means
that the current power brokers get to keep the power they have accumulated and
for which they have sacrificed any semblance of a normal life. [This phenomenon
is, I suspect, personal as well
political. That is, when these people lose that power they can see just how abnormal their lives are. That is, those
lives no longer make much sense, even to them. Hence, the constant effort to
stay “involved,” ala’ Bill Clinton or Dick Cheney or even George Bush.]

Moreover,
I believe it is widely accepted by psychologists and others who know human
behavior that dysfunctional groups go from crisis to crisis, actually need such
crises in order to continue to hold together. Such groups are like a house of
cards, liable and ready to collapse at any moment. It is crises that hold them
together, especially crises that are deemed to come from the outside, what in politics would be called
foreign enemies. Although as J. Edgar
Hoover knew so well, these “enemies” could come from “within.” [See his book
entitled The Enemy Within.] And so,
we have manufactured enemies, such as communists, drug dealers, illegal
immigrants, obese people, smokers, pedophiles, gun-toting maniacs, uncivilized
youths, drug users, crack addicts, welfare queens, dependent people,
terrorists, Muslims, just to name a few that come readily to mind. I am sure
you can add to the list.

Several
years ago, more years than I care to remember, while teaching my course,
Introduction to American Government, I asked the class to watch the news each
evening and help make a list of the various crises we as a nation or a state
were forced to deal with. We reached a low point when someone pointed out that
there was a crisis involving school nurses in public schools. Apparently, there
were just not enough nurses to go around and so sometimes some schools actually
spent hours without a nurse being available. Of course, no figures were given on
how this affected said schools and their students but I knew from talking to my
then-step-daughter one of those effects. Whenever she was feeling hungry, she
would tell the teacher that she had a stomachache and the teacher would send
her to the school nurse, who would give her some candy. Needless to say, she
felt better after that!

We
lurch from “crisis” to “crisis” and, as Obama said, these are all manufactured.
What Obama did not talk about was an alternative. And, of course, his very speech
has contributed to the phenomenon as now we can talk about “the manufactured
crisis crisis!” What a country! You gotta love it!

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

“In a State of the Union
address largely focused on economic themes, he asserted that “we can’t just
cut our way to prosperity” and suggested that it is time for a more balanced
approach, including accepting that government has a vital role to play in
ensuring economic growth and a secure middle class.

“Most of us agree that a plan to reduce the
deficit must be part of our agenda,” Mr. Obama said. “But let’s be clear:
deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan.” [From the New York Times,
February 13, 2013]

OK, so here
are the president’s words. Not especially controversial as near as I can tell,
at least not from a viewpoint that is conventional. The president appeals for
“balance.” Yes, we should cut some government spending but that will not be
enough to guarantee prosperity. And, of course, a lot of people will think:
“Gee, what’s wrong with that?” And as the “bickering” re-emerges in Washington,
D.C., those same people will think: “What clowns we have for public officials.”
And, of course, they would not be completely wrong.

But here is
a question that occurred to me. Do we need an “economic plan” more than we need
a “political plan?” Is our current situation the result of “bad economics” or
the result of “bad politics?” Of course, being a “political scientist,” I think
the latter is more of a problem than the former. That is, it is our politics that has us messed up, even
more than our economics. To focus on our economic situation and look to come up
with “an economic plan” that will lessen our disgust with our current situation
is delusionary. If we cannot get our politics right, then we cannot get our
economics right. It is, I believe, as simple as that.

Let me use
one example of what I mean. One reason, for me a major reason, we are in the
situation we are in today is because we have a war-oriented politics. And by
that I don’t mean solely we have a war-making mentality when it comes to
foreign policy. That is true enough and our military expenditures, which Obama
barely mentioned, are humungous and delusional, both from the viewpoint of
necessity or defense and from the viewpoint of what we can afford. But our
war-making mentality affects our domestic politics as well, as is evident in
our never ending “war on drugs” – which the drugs seem to be winning – to our
war on fat and other alleged sins of many Americans. It has been recommended
that we start a war on cancer and, of course, a war on global warming. And all
of this is in addition to our also never ending “war on terror.”

War-making
politics is a peculiar kind of politics. It is not especially unique to the
United States and it has a long history with humankind for a very good reason:
It is quite seductive. Power is, always has been, and always will be seductive,
far more seductive than sex or greed or gluttony. One amazing thing is how
little this phenomenon is appreciated these days when it is thought, and
thought by both sides of our political divide, that power is good and more
power is better. The “liberals” seem to embrace governmental power, while the
“conservatives” seem to embrace “private” power. But both embrace power and
think that it is power, centralized, organized, magnified power that will “save
the day.”

It
is from this perspective that I argue that what we need is not “an economic
plan” but rather “a political plan.” So long as we think that economic plans
can “save” us, we are doomed to repeat over and over tasks that resemble that
imposed on Sisyphus.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Some
conservatives are pointing out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration’s
policy of using drones to kill people, including American citizens. Good for
them. Of course, they or most of them don’t condemn the policy, just the
hypocrisy.

Well, how
about this for hypocrisy? How would these guys respond were China or Russian or
Iran using drones as we are using ours? I would imagine then that they all,
both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, would be
hypocrites! As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha!”

Thursday, February 7, 2013

This is from an email sent to be by a friend and the quotes are from an address given by a guy named Deneen at a gathering of 20 Georgetown students who met to enjoy some leisure and to discuss, apparently, the battles that need to be fought. This allowed me to elaborate on why I think that multiculturalism as it exists these days is not the threat some make it out to be. But, also, this is not a defense of that currently existing multiculturalism.

"One sees, then, how a diversity of cultures becomes the liberal form of multiculturalism. Cultural diversity in the truest sense results from internal standards and practices within cultures, and cultures collectively and cohesively provide definition of their beliefs, their practices, their customs, their ways of life. Cultures patrol their borders, defining what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, and involves distinctions between members and outsiders.

“Multiculturalism,” or – to use the updated language – “diversity” – reduces beliefs and ways of life to the level of the individual, demanding then in advance of any belief that every individual first assent and commit to a willingness to tolerate any other belief or way of life, so long as there is no threat of physical harm. What becomes intolerable are people who will not give that preliminary assent, who insist that certain standards or beliefs ought to govern in a particular context or setting. Such people need correction, restriction, or ostracism for their intolerance."

Here is the problem I have come to have with this argument made here by Deneen against multi-culturalism or diversity. It is not so much that it is wrong about the standardization that is required to fulfill the wishes of the multi-culturalists. But, hell, that is hardly unique to those guys. I mean Mahoney and Dobski certainly attack diversity but they are hardly people who seek to create an alternative to standardization. And talk about ostracism! I understand that and all because I did not toe the political line Mahoney thought I should. [Note the setting of this address: about 20 students from Georgetown got together and I bet at some posh resort to experience "leisure." How diverse is that? Bet you could find some standardization there as well.]

So, it isn't only the multi-culturalists who effectuate standardization, while praising diversity. And this brings me to my concern: the problem with relativism, the relativism that underlies the current concern with multi-culturalism, is not simply that it leads to a kind of mindless and lifeless standardization. Rather, the problem is that such relativism cannot be maintained in the real world. Nihilism, real nihilism, cannot be adopted easily, and certainly is not adopted by most professors or college students. They are just mouthing slogans because they want to be popular or successful or because they are lazy or all three. As Nietzsche's life illustrates so well, real nihilism is a project, an intense project that can only be undertaken by the few and which is apt to, as it did Nietzsche, make you crazy. As a professor of mine a long time ago said, those who profess to be relativists don't invite guests back to their homes if they suspect those guests pilfered their silverware!

And this, for me, is the most substantial danger of the alleged "relativism" around today under the guise of multi-culturalism: Under duress it disappears in a heart beat, in a "New York minute," as we use to say in Jersey. Just remember the response to 9/11: what role did relativism play in that response? None that I could detect. We went from a nation which had allegedly embraced multi-culturalism to a flag-waving, chest pounding, gun toting, well-oiled killing machine in no time flat. As relativism, multi-culturalism is about a mile wide and an inch deep. The deeper issue is, as it has always been, the human tendency toward tyranny and war, based on what is alleged to be and usually is genuinely thought to be a defense of and expansion of what is deemed to be "the truth" or the only "right" or "virtuous" way to live in the world. As I read Plato and Aristotle, and even Machiavelli, these are the phenomena, tyranny and war, that need to addressed. Human beings need to be tamed, be made gentle and peaceful and political - that is, ruling and being ruled in turn.

A false relativism is not the threat: It is what that leads to which is the threat. As Deneen senses, the question is or should be: Does modernity provide us with the means to truly tame human beings? Or does it only "re-direct" us by encouraging us to "make money" or to become "successful" and, for a few, acquire fame, while leaving those deeper passions toward tyranny and war untouched? Or to put this differently: The problem with "the last man" is that s/he isn't "last" or that s/he cannot "last." When push comes to shove, as it always does, the last men reveal their "dark side," ala' Dick Cheney, Shrub, or Obama.

The argument for leisure is not about using leisure to gear up to "do battle" with those forces you deem threatening. The argument for leisure is or should be an argument for a non- or apolitical life, a philosophic or artistic or domestic/simple life [reread the myth of Er at the end of the Republic where Odysseus chooses the simple life as his next life]. Or perhaps you might say a saintly life, ala' St. Francis.

My fear about Deneen's "retreat" is that those attending will leave seeing themselves as "warriors" out to "save" Western civilization by doing "battle" with the "multi-culturalists." And like any battle, the results will include injustices and even inhuman acts.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Someone
responded to one of my blogs asking “What is all this stuff about the ‘status
quo’, Schultz? You make such a big deal out of that and it seems to me you make
too much of it. What gives?”

Well, in
one sense, I agree with this implied criticism. That those who are holding the
power, the political power, of a given “system” should try to preserve that
system and their place in it, is or should be of no surprise. This is one of
the most common characteristics known to human beings who are, as Aristotle
pointed out, political animals. That is, human beings want to, crave rule. Those
who have achieved power, especially those who have achieved great power after
great effort and sacrifice, are necessarily going to try to preserve that
power. So in this sense, perhaps I do make too much of this “status quo thing.”

On the
other hand, when viewed from the perspective of our current situation,
including that we take pride in saying and thinking that we live in a “democracy”
or a “republic,” the desire to preserve the status quo takes on a more
malevolent aspect. Consider this: We have lived through some of the most
interesting times, times that included the nation going to war, in Iraq, based
on falsehoods and, apparently, even deliberately contrived falsehoods. This war
did not go well and even appears to have been one of the most significant
strategic blunders ever undertaken by this nation, with more significant
consequences perhaps than even the Vietnam War. Now, one can attribute this
undertaking to a particular man, George W. Bush, or a particular
administration, the Bush administration, or a particular group of people, the
“neo-conservatives.” But this could be wrong. That is, this undertaking could
be “systemic,” the result of a “systemic bias” as many would say, much as
Athenian imperialism was seen as systemic and not idiosyncratic. If this is the
case or insofar as it is the case, then preserving the status quo is the
equivalent of preserving a defective, which is to say an undemocratic or
oligarchic and failing, system.

That this
war reflects a systemic defect is supported by the fact that the successor,
Barack Obama, to the president who led us into this war did not repudiate his
predecessor or his war. In fact, he embraced that war, made it his own, and did
nothing, not one thing, by way of holding his predecessor to account. Why not?
What did he have to lose by asking for some accountability? As his predecessor
left office with the lowest “approval” ratings of any other president, even
Jimmy Carter, it is difficult to see what Obama had to lose by asking for some
accountability. And I am speaking of accountability and not punishment, a
distinction with a rather significant difference.

Having
lived through that time, it is impossible for me to think that had George
McGovern won the 1972 presidential election that he would have foregone the
chance to hold Richard Nixon accountable for his conduct and expansion of the
Vietnam War. This is why it was so important that McGovern not be allowed to
win that election, a project that included dissing one man’s mental stability
and turning McGovern into a radical, one who hailed from South Dakota. Yes,
that makes sense, no? But, of course, from the perspective of the status quo,
McGovern was a radical. On the other hand, Barack Obama has proven to be just
another politician, more interested in preserving the prevailing alignment of
forces than changing them for the sake of the betterment of the nation. That
Obama has just recently agreed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for almost
all Americans only serves to solidify this assessment.

I could
discuss the economic situation as well but I believe my argument is pretty
clear. What I want to emphasize is that there is a lot of evidence “out there”
that the American people recognize that the current system, the current
arrangement of political power and the uses to which it is put, is or should be
kaput. There is the fast moving gay and lesbian realignment; there is the
rejection, ever more broadly, of the war on drugs; there is the anger that is
evident in but not confined to the tea party; there are the election results
which illustrate that the American people did not see much difference between
Mr. White Bread Romney and Mr. Almost White Bread Obama – results which most
interpret as indicating that the nation is intensely divided when in fact they
indicate quite the opposite, viz., agreement that the status quo is hardly
worth preserving. “Romney or Obama? Oh well, might as well stick with the devil
we know. At least we know how bad he is.”

So, I would
defend my concern with talking about the status quo and the apparent desire of
its defenders to do most anything to preserve it. After its adventure in
Afghanistan, the Soviet Union disintegrated. That system was less stable than
is ours but don’t think the powers that be here are unaware of what happened in
and to the Soviet Union and its incumbents. It is, they are well aware, a
dangerous time for those who are benefitting from the status quo, just as it
was a dangerous time after Vietnam, Richard Nixon and Watergate, and Jimmy
Carter [a genuine outsider who needed “taming”]. So, Obama is, interestingly,
our Ronald Reagan after all. And just as Reagan’s alleged “conservatism” did,
so does the fact that Obama is “black” make it seem, or made it seem until he
began to actually govern, as if we have moved beyond the status quo. But in
neither case was the status quo disturbed to any significant degree. Sad to
say, but the hope for change was crushed by the man who ran on a promise of
hope and change.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Well, here
it is, confirmation from the Associated Press that the mission, undertaken by
establishment Republicans especially, but aided by the Democrats who share the
Republicans’ motivation, has been accomplished. What was that mission? Why to
preserve the status quo and, therewith, the power of those who are invested in
that status quo.

“House Speaker John
Boehner has shored up his political clout after a shaky month, persuading his
Republican caucus to pick its fights with Democrats more strategically.

“His impressive rebound,
aided by face-the-facts confrontations with colleagues, helped the government
avoid a potential default on its financial obligations — for three months, at
least.“It also reassured
establishment Republicans who feared the House majority was becoming so
unpredictable that it endangered the party.”

Ah yes, the “endangered” Republican Party. Now, isn’t
that the message we have been hearing since Mr. Almost White Bread beat Mr. White
Bread in our latest presidential election? Time to “get on board, boys and
girls.” The people have spoken and, well, the status quo it will be. Ah, and
now we can all breathe a sign of relief.

“The
implications went beyond one politician’s fate. Financial markets and corporate
planners were reassured when House Republicans agreed to postpone a showdown
over the government’s borrowing capacity.”

And, of course, if our “financial
markets and corporate planners” are “reassured,” then the rest of us should be
as well.

Once again, our politicians have
learned – and then conveyed to us – the limitations of political action.

“We’re too outnumbered to govern, to make policy,” said Rep.
John Fleming, R-La., who had defied Boehner on votes earlier in January on the
fiscal cliff and hurricane aid. “But we can make a serious impact on spending”
by picking when and where to fight, Fleming said.”

So, the
Republicans will now pick and choose their fights, but of course only after the
Democrats agreed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for almost all Americans.
There will be fights, no doubt, over spending but, rest assured, not much is
going to change. Because after all, that is the purpose of preserving the
status quo, ensuring that not much changes. Rest easy, my friends, the republic
has been saved. Or has it?